By Dr Alexandra Dobra-Kiel
In an era defined by rapid technological advancements and unprecedented global challenges, the need for disruptive innovation has never been greater. Yet, we are witnessing a marked decline in such innovation. What’s stifling our progress? The answer may lie in an often-overlooked aspect of organisational culture: psychological safety. Organisational culture sets the tone for how employees interact, share ideas, and take risks. A key aspect of a culture that fosters innovation is psychological safety. However, the concept of psychological safety is widely misunderstood, and the absence of a clear and actionable decodification of its enablers hampers its implementation. This article explores the critical role of psychological safety in fostering innovation and proposes a framework for its successful decodification and subsequent nurturing.
Introduction
Economic uncertainty, geopolitical instability, climate change, cybercrime, and a rapidly changing technological landscape add further layers of complexity to an already demanding role for leaders. These complexities demand a surge of disruptive innovation to overcome limitations, achieve breakthroughs in effectiveness and navigate the ever-changing landscape with global solutions. However, a concerning trend emerges from recent research: disruptive innovation is in decline. Studies documented a staggering 90% decrease in disruptive scientific innovation since the mid-20th century, mirroring a decline in U.S. research productivity (Park et al., 2023; Bloom et al., 2020). This shift towards incremental improvements, driven in part by rising research costs (Gold, 2021), poses a significant threat to economic growth, public health, and our ability to address existential challenges.
Disruptive innovation thrives on venturing beyond the familiar, challenging assumptions, and experimenting with new ideas.
While increasing research costs undoubtedly play a role, a deeper explanation lies within the realm of human behaviour – specifically, a declining well-calibrated risk-taking. Disruptive innovation thrives on venturing beyond the familiar, challenging assumptions, and experimenting with new ideas. However, our natural tendency towards comfort creates significant barriers to this essential process. In this context, the concept of psychological safety within organisations emerges as a potent solution (Edmondson, 1999, 2018; Clark 2016). Consider Google’s “20% time” policy, fuelled by psychological safety, which resulted in groundbreaking innovations like Gmail and Google Maps, transforming how we access information. Similarly, Pixar’s culture of experimentation, fuelled by psychological safety, led to “Toy Story,” the first fully computer-animated feature film.
1. Psychological safety: Its role in disruptive innovation decline
The decline in disruptive innovation extends far beyond the realm of academic concern. It manifests in real-world consequences that threaten our collective well-being. Stagnant scientific progress cripples our ability to tackle climate change, potentially leading to more frequent and severe extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and mass displacement. These consequences will disproportionately impact vulnerable populations, further widening the inequality gap.
The economic ramifications are equally concerning. Disruptive innovation is the engine of economic growth, driving productivity gains and fostering the creation of new industries and jobs. A decline in disruptive innovation leads to stagnant or declining GDP, hindering nations’ ability to invest in essential public services, education, and infrastructure. This can exacerbate existing socioeconomic inequalities, as those with lower incomes will continue to be hit hardest.
Beyond the immediate economic impact, the decline in disruptive innovation raises a fundamental question: how can we rekindle the spirit of exploration and discovery that fuelled past advancements? Part of the answer lies in cultivating an organisational environment that empowers well-calibrated risk-taking. This is where the concept of psychological safety becomes paramount.
2. Psychological safety: It’s a big misunderstanding and why it matters for disruptive innovation
While most organisations acknowledge the importance of psychological safety, a crucial first step lies in dispelling a common misconception: it’s not about creating an exclusively comfortable environment (Davies, 2023). In fact, the term “psychological safety” itself can be misleading. The emphasis on “safety” might seem contradictory in the context of taking risks, a cornerstone of disruptive innovation.
This misconception is reflected in a recent study by Behave where only 16% of HR leaders grasped the true essence of psychological safety (Behave, 2023). A significant portion, 44%, defined it as an environment where employees feel secure and protected, essentially prioritising comfort over risk-taking.
This misconception is partly explained by the natural human tendency to gravitate towards comfort. Comfort zones are cosy as they provide a sense of security and predictability, making it easier to focus on short-term results and established metrics – a common approach that prioritises efficiency over disruptive innovation. But this focus on efficiency can lead to:
- Reluctance to try new things: Familiarity breeds comfort, potentially leading to a reluctance to disrupt established processes. People may become hesitant to question the status quo for fear of jeopardising existing results.
- Fear of failure: Stepping outside our comfort zone involves risk, and the fear of failure can be a powerful deterrent. The comfort zone provides a sense of security, even if it limits potential growth.
- Lack of stimulation: Our brains thrive on novelty. When constantly in our comfort zone, we’re not stimulating new neural pathways or challenging ourselves to think differently. This stagnation can stifle creativity and make it difficult to come up with innovative solutions.
Comfort breeds complacency, which ultimately hinders the kind of disruptive innovation needed to address complex challenges and navigate a world of constant disruption.
An overemphasis on comfort stifles progress. Comfort breeds complacency, which ultimately hinders the kind of disruptive innovation needed to address complex challenges and navigate a world of constant disruption. We’re already seeing the effects of this in the rise of the “quiet quitting” phenomenon, where employees do the bare minimum to get by, and the “zombie workforce,” characterised by a lack of engagement and motivation. However, fostering a work environment built on real psychological safety offers a potential solution to quiet quitting and the zombie workforce.
3. Psychological safety: It’s real understanding and why it matters for disruptive innovation
Having a more nuanced definition of psychological safety is not merely a matter of semantics; it is crucial for fostering an environment conducive to innovation (see, Christensen et al., 1997; O’Reilly and Tushman, 2010, 2013).
In response to this misconception and building and expanding on existing work on psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999, 2018; Clark 2016), Behave defines it as “an environment where employees balance comfort and discomfort to take well-calibrated risks” (Dobra-Kiel, 2023). This definition is further operationalised through a proprietary framework that identifies three core enablers of psychological safety: growth, belonging, and resilience. Each of these enablers encompasses a pair of measures, reflecting the critical interplay between comfort and discomfort. Having these enablers and measures equips companies with a specific and actionable framework to diagnose their current state and implement targeted interventions to cultivate a psychologically safe environment.
- Growth – Proactive
Collaboration and humility serve as key measures within the “growth” enabler.
Collaboration: By working together, individuals expose themselves to different ideas, skill sets, and experiences. This “cross-pollination” of knowledge sparks new approaches and solutions that wouldn’t be possible in isolation. It allows teams to explore uncharted territory by combining diverse strengths.
Humility: A willingness to learn and adapt is crucial for disruptive innovation. Humility fosters an environment where people are open to admitting they might not have all the answers, which allows for the exploration of new ideas and experimentation. It removes the fear of “being wrong” which can stifle creativity.
- Belonging – Inclusive Contribution. Participation and examination are key measures within the “belonging” enabler.
Figure 1 Psychological safety decodification by Behave™, all rights reserved, developed by Dr Alexandra Dobra-Kiel
Participation: When everyone feels valued and their voice is heard, it encourages them to contribute their unique perspectives. This can lead to unexpected connections and ideas that wouldn’t emerge if only a select few were involved. It allows for a wider range of possibilities to be considered.
Examination: Diversity of thought is essential for disruptive innovation. Encouraging questioning of assumptions from different viewpoints helps identify flaws and limitations in existing approaches. It pushes the boundaries of “what if” and challenges the status quo, leading to potentially groundbreaking solutions.
- Resilience – Safe Challenge.
Disagreement and vulnerability are key measures within the “resilience” enabler.
Disagreement: Healthy debate and constructive criticism prevent stagnation and groupthink. When people feel safe to express differing opinions, it forces the team to re-evaluate ideas and consider alternative approaches. This “creative friction” sparks disruptive innovation and leads to more robust solutions.
Vulnerability: Being open about challenges and failures allows for learning and growth. It fosters a culture where experimentation is encouraged, even if it doesn’t always lead to immediate success. This reduces the fear of failure, a major barrier to taking risks and venturing into new territory.
A fear of stimulating discomfort in a global context that is already challenging is understandable. Striking the right balance between comfort and discomfort is not easy. Organisations may face challenges, including resistance to change, concerns about short-term performance, or difficulties in establishing clear metrics for psychological safety. It is crucial for organisations to address these challenges proactively and transparently.
Conclusion
The decline in disruptive innovation is a significant challenge, but not an insurmountable one. This article has proposed a framework for nurturing psychological safety. Through the enablers of growth, belonging, and resilience, – and their respective pairs of comfort and discomfort – organisations can foster an environment where disruptive innovation can occur. To nurture psychological safety, organisations will need a multi-faceted approach that involves not only redefining organisational culture but also addressing potential challenges, providing actionable strategies, and establishing appropriate metrics for progress tracking.
Nurturing psychological safety is not just about staying ahead of the curve, it’s about ensuring our collective ability to solve the complex problems facing the world today. From mitigating climate change to decreasing inequality, the solutions lie in unconventional thinking and bold action. By embracing this framework and empowering their human capital, organisations can become the architects of an environment that can be conducive to disruptive innovation.
About the Author
Dr Alexandra Dobra-Kiel is a seasoned management consultant specialising in corporate strategy, trademarked innovation, and behavioural science. She co-founded and co-leads the management consulting venture of Behave and serves on the Advertising Association’s AI Taskforce. With previous experience at Deloitte, Kroll, and Accenture, Alexandra has provided strategic guidance to executives. She is a media commentator, conference speaker, and author, and holds a PhD from Warwick and a master’s from Cambridge.
References
-
Behave (2023). The Death of the Comfort Zone? – Unwrapping Psychological Safety in the Workplace. Behave.
-
Bloom, N., Jones, C. I., Van Reenen, J. and Webb, M. (2020). Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find? American Economic Review, 110(4), pp. 1104-1144.
-
Christensen, C. M., Meyer, R. and Roth, E. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business School Press.
-
Davies, J. (2023). Why Employer Misunderstanding of Psychological Safety Is Hurting Teams’ Worklife, 28 November. [Interview with Dr Alexandra Dobra-Kiel, Dr Amy Edmondson and Sope Agbelusi]. Retrieved 2 July 2024, from https://www.worklife.news/leadership/why-employer-misunderstanding-of-psychological-safety-is-hurting-teams-performance/
-
Dobra-Kiel, A. (2023). What Is Psychological Safety and Why Do HR Leaders Need to Understand It? Unleash, 29 November. Retrieved 2 July 2024, from https://www.unleash.ai/future-of-work/what-is-psychological-safety-and-why-do-hr-leaders-need-to-understand-it/
-
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), pp. 359-383.
-
Edmondson, A. (2018). The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in Ferociously Competitive Environments. John Wiley & Sons.
-
Gold, E. R. (2021). The Fall of the Innovation Empire and its Possible Rise through Open Science. Research Policy, 50(5), pp. 104-226.
-
Park, M., Leahey, E. and Funk, R. J. (2023). Papers and Patents Are Becoming Less Disruptive Over Time. Nature, 613(7942), pp. 138-144.
-
Tushman, M., Smith, W. K., Wood, R. C., Westerman, G. and O’Reilly, C. (2010). Organizational Designs and Innovation Streams. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(5), pp. 1331-1366.
-
Tushman, M. L. and O’Reilly, C. A. (2013). Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), pp. 324-338.
